1. By the medium of this application, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) in FIR No. 25/2011 registered at Police Station Kargil under Sections 302, 307,120-B and 201 of Ranbir Penal Code (for short RPC) for grant of bail, on the grounds taken in it. 2. Respondent-State has filed objections resisting the bail application of petitioners on the grounds that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302,307,120-B and 201 RPC. It is stated that the petitioners also moved an application for grant of bail before the trial court, i.e., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil, on 16.05.2012, wherein the police also submitted the detailed report. After sensing that their bail application would be rejected, the petitioners herein with-drew the same and have now approached this Court by the medium of petition in hand for grant of bail. 3. Mr. Shuja, learned Government Advocate, while arguing submitted that the Challan stands presented before the court of competent jurisdiction and it is at the stage of framing of charges. 4. Mr. Qayoom, while advancing the stance of petitioners, argued that they are innocent and are not involved in the commission of any offence. Further, there is no prima facie evidence which can be made basis for holding or presuming that the petitioners are involved in the commission of any offence, which would warrant refusal of bail. 5. Admittedly, criminal case is pending against the petitioners before the court of competent jurisdiction and charges are yet to be framed. It is also admitted that the application for bail filed by the petitioners before the trial court came to be withdrawn. Thus, the petitioners have not allowed the court of first instance to decide their bail application on merits; instead they have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 498 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. 6. The Apex Court in the case Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC118, held that the proper course to seek bail is to approach the court of first instance. 7. This Court also has laid the same principle in the case Mian Abdul Qayoom v. State of J&K, 2011 (1) JKJ 500 (HC). It would be apt to reproduce paragraph-5 thereof herein. 5. 7. This Court also has laid the same principle in the case Mian Abdul Qayoom v. State of J&K, 2011 (1) JKJ 500 (HC). It would be apt to reproduce paragraph-5 thereof herein. 5. Petitioner has remedy in terms of Section 497 Cr.P.C. to seek bail by laying motion before the Court of first instance. The Apex Court in case titled Gurcharan Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118 observed that it is proper to exhaust first remedy. It is apt to reproduce para 24 of the said judgment herein:-"24. Section 439(1), Cr. P.C. of the new Code, on the other hand, confers special powers on the High Court or the Court of Session in respect of bail. Unlike u/s 437(1) there is no ban imposed u/s 439(1), Cr. P.C. against granting of bail by the High Court or the Court of Session to persons accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is, however, legitimate to suppose that the High Court or the Court of Session will be approached by an accused only after he has failed before the Magistrate and after the investigation has progressed throwing light on the evidence and circumstances implicating the accused. Even so, the High Court or the Court of Session will have to exercise its judicial discretion in considering the question of granting of bail u/s 439(1), Cr. P.C. of the new Code. The over-riding considerations in granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1), Cr. P.C. of the new Code are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood, of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardizing his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out." No doubt the remedy in terms of Section 498 Cr. P.C. can be availed but it would amount to depriving the party a forum against whom the order would be passed by the Court of first instance. In this backdrop, it is proper to direct petitioner to approach the Court of first instance." 8. As discussed hereinabove, the matter is pending before the court of first instance and it is for the said court to determine whether charge is to be framed or not. 9. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to transfer this bail application to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kargil for deciding the same within three weeks with effect from 1st October 2012 and report compliance. 10. Parties are directed to cause appearance before the transferee court on 1st October 2012. 11. Registry is directed to send the file to the transferee court and retain the index of the file for records.